hawaii judiciary 20/20...hawaii judiciary 20/20: our vision “…to determine how the judiciary’s...

Hawaii Judiciary 20/20: Our Vision

“…to determine how the Judiciary’s mission may evolve, or should evolve, between now and the year 2020, and to determine how the Judiciary can

most effectively achieve this mission.”

from the Order Establishing the Judiciary Strategic Planning Committee, dated October 3, 2011

Final Report of the Judiciary Strategic Planning Committee

CONTENTS

Page

I. Introduction 1

II. Strategic Issues and Recommended Actions 5

Access to Justice 5

Fair and Timely Case Resolution 6

Public Understanding, Trust, and Confidence 7

Sound Infrastructure 8

A Strong Workforce, Committed to Public Service 9

Physical /Technological Security and Disaster Preparedness 10

III. Acknowledgements 11

Appendix

Order Establishing the Judiciary Strategic Planning Committee (Hawaii Judiciary 20/20: Our Vision) and Appointing Its Members A

Employee Survey Instrument and Statistical Results B

Stakeholder Survey Instrument and Statistical Results C

General Population Survey Instrument and Statistical Results D

1

Introduction

The Hawaii Judiciary 20/20: Our Vision strategic planning process was initiated by Chief Justice Mark E. Recktenwald in October 2011. The strategic planning process was intended to be open and transparent and provide multiple opportunities for Judiciary employees, key stakeholders in the justice system, and the general public to contribute their respective visions for the future of the Hawaii State Judiciary (Judiciary).

This is a critical time for the State of Hawaii and for the Judiciary: we have endured serious budget reductions; we have sacrificed programs and services to achieve substantial economies; and we have new leadership. Our statewide, unified court system will continue to be challenged by our need to achieve both economies of scale and flexible responses to evolving conditions.

The Strategic Planning Committee (Committee) appointed by the October 3, 2011, Order of the Chief Justice (Order) was given the task of developing a recommended plan to shape the future of the Judiciary between now and 2020, consistent with the Judiciary’s stated mission: “…to administer justice in an impartial, efficient and accessible manner in accordance with the law.”

The Committee met twenty-one times in plenary session. The meetings were typically three hours long and involved both structured presentations and discussion among Committee members. Four full-day meetings were held on Oahu, and neighbor island Committee members flew to Oahu in order to facilitate discussion.

At the Committee’s first meeting, information about past and current strategic planning

initiatives in other state judiciaries was presented, and Committee members discussed qualities, issues, and priority areas that appeared to assist judiciaries across the country achieve their respective missions. Committee members were encouraged to utilize an on-line collaboration tool to monitor the latest activity on the project, post “bright ideas,” review files uploaded by support staff, and comment on drafts of work by other Committee members. Additionally, the Committee’s meeting agendas and summaries were linked to the Judiciary’s intranet home page so that Judiciary employees might be informed about the Committee’s work.

Sub-committees and workgroups were regularly formed to address issues that arose from the full Committee’s discussions. Among them were: the employee survey sub-committee, the procurement sub-committee, the employee survey analysis sub-committee, the public survey sub-committee, a security sub-committee, a technology sub-committee, a communications sub-committee, a training sub-committee, a facilities sub-committee, a staffing sub-committee, and a management culture and leadership sub-committee. Each sub-committee selected a chairperson to present the sub-committee’s findings to the full Committee and to organize its meetings and prepare its written reports. Neighbor island sub-committee members participated via videoconferencing and/or teleconferencing.

The employee survey sub-committee developed and, after review and revision by the full Committee, rolled-out a comprehensive employee survey, ensuring that all Judiciary employees had an opportunity to provide input into the Committee’s work. The employee

2

survey received an extraordinary number of responses – approximately 80% of Judiciary employees took the survey, and an impressive one-third of those provided written comments on how the Judiciary could be improved.

In response to the survey, many employees stated that they would like the opportunity to provide ongoing feedback to the Committee. The Committee responded by creating an online comment form where employees were able to communicate their thoughts and ideas with the Committee on an ongoing basis.

Preliminary statistical analysis of the employee survey results was performed by a sub-committee and indicated that the following topics were of particular interest to Judiciary employees: training; facilities; technology, including the Judiciary Information Management System (JIMS); staffing; security; and management culture and leadership. The survey analysis sub-committee then took the preliminary results and examined various cross tabulations in order to extract more detailed information from the data. The survey analysis sub-committee shared its findings with the full Committee and, after discussion, added other cross-tabulations to their survey analysis.

During the initial period of the Committee’s work and at the direction of the Chief Justice, the Judiciary applied for and was awarded a technical assistance grant by the State Justice Institute to support the Strategic Planning effort. In response to a Request for Proposals advertised by the Judiciary’s Procurement Office in January 2012, several contractors expressed an interest in assisting in the development of a comprehensive, statewide, strategic planning process for the Judiciary. A procurement sub-committee was formed to evaluate the proposals received, interview the

potential offerors, conduct reference checks, and make a final decision regarding the contractor selection. On March 14, 2012, the procurement sub-committee finalized their selection, and on March 20, 2012, the Notice of Award was sent to SMS Research and Marketing Services, Inc. (SMS). At the full Committee meeting on March 30th, SMS consultants were invited to examine the employee survey results and report any additional findings to the Committee.

During the late spring, facilitated meetings with both Judiciary employees and other stakeholders in each of the judicial circuits were conducted by SMS to identify major issues affecting the Judiciary’s future and to hear from employees and others what actions might be considered. Summaries of these visioning sessions were shared with all Committee members. Sub-committees were formed and subsequently met with subject-matter experts regarding these and the earlier-identified areas of particular employee interest. These reports were shared with all Committee members.

In July, the entire Committee met on Oahu for a full day’s discussion of the broad range of input received from Judiciary employees through the survey results, interviews with subject-matter experts, and visioning sessions conducted with employees in each of the circuits. Ideas about the Judiciary’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and challenges also were discussed. Although the strengths of the Judiciary, as an institution, were closely identified with its employees, significant problems also were identified, some of a long-standing nature. Many of these problems/ limitations were attributed to a lack of fiscal resources; some to a lack of uniformity or standardization in the Judiciary; and others to

3

breakdowns in communication and institutional barriers to information sharing. Problems which seemed to suggest an institutional need to re-examine core priorities or the mission of the Judiciary were deemed to be outside the scope of the Committee.

Throughout the summer, interviews with public and private sector stakeholders in all circuits were conducted by the Committee co-chairs and by SMS. These groups and individuals had been identified by the Committee as having a recognized interest in the Judiciary’s operations. Members of the Hawaii State Bar Association; union leaders; state legislators; county council members; executive branch department heads; members of Judiciary boards, commissions, or committees; social service agency heads; and others in the private sector also were invited to provide input into the strategic planning process by completing an anonymous online survey. A total of 105 “stakeholder” surveys were completed. In addition, a press release was issued and a link was included on the Judiciary’s public website, inviting public response to a “general public” online survey. A total of 488 “general public” surveys were completed. The two online surveys differed in the number and kinds of questions asked.

In September, the entire Committee met again on Oahu for two full days. At these meetings, facilitated by SMS, Committee members discussed the input of external stakeholders and the general public, were presented external trends analysis by SMS, and preliminarily integrated the internal and external concerns expressed into strategic issues. The six strategic issues: access to justice; fair and timely case resolution; public understanding, trust and confidence; sound infrastructure; a strong

workforce, committed to public service; and physical/technological security and disaster preparedness were further refined by various sub-committees. It was clear from the feedback received that some of the expectations of stakeholders and the general public were not being met by the Judiciary. Again, a lack of fiscal resources could be responsible for some of the dissatisfaction with court-related services. In other instances, some of the unmet expectations might also have been addressed if the Judiciary directed more resources to informing the public about its role in the justice system and services available to court users.

The twentieth meeting of the full Committee was held November 2nd on Oahu; it was a full-day meeting during which Committee members chose the recommended actions to be included in the Committee’s final report to the Chief Justice. In the process of reviewing the many worthwhile “recommended actions,” and determining those to be included in the final report, the Committee was faced with the difficult task of refining the list, and as such, a number of these did not make it into the main body of the Report. Regardless, the Committee gratefully acknowledges the input provided by Judiciary employees, subject matter experts, and members of the public who took time to contribute their ideas and recommendations.

Drafting of the final report proceeded with the assistance of several Committee members; the final product received the approval of the entire Committee. The outline format of the Report should not be viewed as the Committee’s prioritization of the included strategic issues and recommended actions.

The Committee is very aware of the State’s still unsettled economic situation, the Judiciary’s limited financial resources, ongoing budget

4

concerns, and projected deficits for the fiscal biennium. Many of the Committee’s recommended actions have the potential to save costs, and others to provide guidance as to what is needed to more efficiently and effectively serve those seeking the Judiciary’s assistance. Still others, though, will need to await funding. The Committee believes that one of the most important factors in allowing the Judiciary to fulfill its mission or to implement almost any of the recommended actions included in this Report is the availability of sufficient and stable funding.

This Report marks a milestone in the Judiciary’s on-going strategic planning process and offers a number of recommended actions to guide our vision into the future.

5

I. Access to Justice

Hawaii’s Judiciary shall strive to improve access to justice and shall continue to support, where possible, the mission of the Access to Justice Commission.

A. Make justice accessible for all.

Recommended Actions:

1. Expand and establish centers where Judiciary forms, information, and assistance navigating through the court process and system are provided to self-represented parties via technology (e.g., public access computers) or by Judiciary personnel.

2. Create additional centers where legal advice is offered by volunteer attorneys, in person, or via technology where limited demand or resources make physical centers less feasible.

3. Ensure that baseline information for each Circuit is posted on the Judiciary’s internet site, available via mobile applications and in multiple languages, with sufficient guidance to assist self-represented court customers.

4. Facilitate the use of interpretation services by installing equipment in courtrooms to allow for video-based American Sign Language (ASL) interpretation and language interpretation for individuals with limited English proficiency.

B. Enhance understanding and respect for all people.


1. Develop and implement an internal training curriculum for staff and judges, including customer service training, on cultural awareness and barriers to access to justice.

2. Provide training for staff and judges on the Hawaii State Judiciary Bias Awareness and Prevention Guide.

C. Encourage alternatives to litigation for resolving disputes.


1. Enhance the availability of mediation and other alternative dispute resolution (ADR) programs currently offered by the Judiciary.

2. Expand the kinds of ADR methodologies available, including processes online, and expand the institutional capacity for peer mediation in schools and in state and county workplaces.

6

II. Fair and Timely Case Resolution

Fair and timely case resolution are essential components of the administration of justice. Due process and equal protection of the law; impartial treatment; and a system free from interest, bias, or prejudice are all necessary before the community can conclude that a case has been fairly decided. Efficient and effective resource allocation, court operations, and case scheduling; alternative dispute resolution; and the use of best practices all contribute to the timely resolution of cases.

A. Minimize delays for court customers.


1. Establish an intra-circuit committee to identify workflows, policies, and procedures to be standardized in order to make case processing more efficient and effective.

2. Promote and enhance the use of technology for limited court appearances at the court’s discretion by, for example, allowing telephone or video appearances in certain types of proceedings.

3. Establish an internal committee to review Court calendar procedures and practices, using input from court users, to ensure that court calendars provide for the most efficient disposition of cases.

4. Explore opportunities to standardize forms across circuits, where possible, using court-specific committees (judges, administrators, and court employees) to submit recommendations to the Rules Committee for review/submission to the Supreme Court.

B. Optimize the use of court time.


1. Evaluate whether the assignment of administrative duties to Chief and Deputy Chief Judges are consistent with the effective and efficient operation of the courts and the core functions of judges.

2. Expand the Hawaii Appellate Mediation Program to include an appellate mediator position dedicated to mediating complex cases and holding mandatory case management conferences for all civil appeals, except as excluded under Rule 2, Hawaii Appellate Mediation Program Rules.

3. Create staff mediator positions at the Family Court to which Family Court cases may be referred.

7

III. Public Understanding, Trust, and Confidence

The integrity of the justice system relies on judicial decisions that are independent of political and other external influences and on the public’s understanding and support of that system. Similarly, public trust and confidence in the system depend on the Judiciary’s workforce adhering to high ethical standards, exercising professionalism and care in dealing with colleagues and court users, communicating the independent role of the Judiciary, being accountable for the use of public funds, and improving the openness and transparency of the system.

A. Increase public understanding of and confidence in the Judiciary.


1. Dedicate additional resources to identify, create, manage, and support civic education initiatives by partnering with other public and private organizations to promote public understanding, trust, and confidence in the justice system.

2. Utilize technology, where possible, to allow probation officers to more closely monitor probationer compliance (e.g., check-in using retinal scans or fingerprints to verify a probationer’s identification, and to make restitution payments).

3. Create an information center which provides advice/direction on accessing the Judiciary on multiple platforms (e.g., telephone, web, and mobile applications).

B. Enhance the Judiciary’s openness and transparency to the public.


1. Identify and share Judiciary performance standards and measures throughout the organization.

2. Consolidate statistical recordkeeping functions and create one system that would enable the Judiciary to monitor pending workload and cases and that would be reflective of the work of the courts and programs in order to establish consistent performance goals.

3. Publicize the Judiciary’s performance-related measures and standards so that the public can evaluate whether the Judiciary meets performance expectations.

8

IV. Sound Infrastructure

Judiciary facilities and the infrastructure within which the Courts operate, including the information technology network, systems and applications, impact the public’s perceptions of the Judiciary, access to justice, court performance, efficient workflow, and staff effectiveness. Judiciary facilities also have a profound impact on the natural environment. Buildings which incorporate environmentally sound practices in both construction and ongoing operations lessen the Judiciary’s dependence on non-sustainable and increasingly expensive sources of energy and support the health of staff and members of the public in the Judiciary’s buildings. Maintaining Judiciary facilities, updating and safeguarding technological systems, remodeling facilities as needed, and constructing new facilities require ongoing oversight, and, perhaps most importantly, budgetary resources.

A. Maintain and enhance an information technology system that supports the effective and efficient administration of justice.


1. Ensure that the Information Technology Plan is aligned with current Judiciary strategic and operational goals and considers feedback from stakeholders.

2. Update, develop, and coordinate with the circuits and programs statewide standardized policies, operating procedures, and guidelines for the administration of information technology in the Judiciary. Ensure that these are shared with all Judiciary employees.

3. Develop and facilitate the delivery of training for end users (Judiciary employees and public users) on the Judiciary’s information technology systems.

B. Ensure that Judiciary facilities support effective and efficient court operations.


1. Ensure that the statewide Facilities Master Plan is aligned with current Judiciary strategic and operational goals taking into account accessibility, security, safety, repair, and on-going maintenance.

2. Install uniform, customer-friendly signage throughout Judiciary buildings which supports communication with all court customers.

3. Identify and pursue alternative energy solutions that can be implemented in new and existing Judiciary buildings.

9

V. A Strong Workforce, Committed to Public Service

Attracting and retaining a talented, diverse, and stable workforce committed to public service and the efficient and effective administration of justice is vital to promoting public trust in the justice system and increasing workplace productivity and morale. Investing in our employees through training, mentoring, and other programs is crucial to achieving a strong and appropriately-sized workforce in a constantly changing environment.

A. Ensure that staff are effectively trained to provide superior customer service.


1. Enhance the Judicial Education Office’s training budget to expand the program’s ability to plan, conduct, and coordinate training statewide.

2. Continue to support the efforts of the Judicial Education Office and the Committee on Staff Education and Training to develop a comprehensive training curriculum and implementation plan for the Judiciary statewide; with an emphasis on new employee orientation, customer service, job specific training for staff, continuing education for IT staff, ethics in the workplace, professional standards of conduct, as well as management, leadership, team building, and effective communication skills for all supervisors.

3. Maximize the effective use of technology for delivering employee training and information by utilizing web conferencing, online video training, or other methods, in lieu of in-person facilitated training, with its attendant high costs and time constraints.

4. Provide cross-training opportunities, where possible, to enhance employees’ knowledge and skills for possible career advancement opportunities and to enhance operational efficiency.

5. Where appropriate and effective, create standardized training manuals, with job specific curricula for employees; ensure the training manuals are accessible to employees by posting on the Judiciary intranet, where appropriate; and ensure these are regularly updated to reflect changing processes and procedures.

B. Encourage a productive workplace.


1. Encourage employees in their efforts to live a healthy lifestyle by providing educational material including links on the Judiciary intranet site to programs available through health insurers, the American Heart Association, the American Cancer Society, and other local/national organizations.

10

2. Establish/formalize alternative processes (e.g., Ombuds office, workplace mediation program) for employees to resolve workplace concerns.

11

VI. Physical/Technological Security and Disaster Preparedness

The Judiciary has a responsibility to provide a safe and secure environment for its employees and for those who utilize its services. Natural and human-made hazards jeopardize the safety and security of occupants in Judiciary facilities as well as the integrity of information entrusted to the Judiciary. Mitigating these risks requires advance planning, employee training, and appropriate use of adequate resources.

A. Provide a safe and secure environment for the administration of justice.


1. Use technology, where appropriate, to supplement security practices (e.g., cameras in parking facilities and in cell blocks, offsite monitoring of security systems).

2. Conduct periodic staff training and drills on emergency and security procedures.

3. Continue working with the Department of Public Safety to address each circuit’s specific security needs by, among other things, implementing a Memorandum of Agreement that ensures sufficient security.

B. Ensure the continuity of court operations in the event of an emergency or disaster.


1. Ensure that the Judiciary’s Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP) is coordinated with all justice system components, is continuously assessed and updated, and is appropriately communicated to all employees.

2. Implement procedures to protect and recover the Judiciary’s vital records, both electronic and hard copy, in the event of a natural or human-made emergency or disaster.

3. Conduct periodic staff training, including practice drills, on the Judiciary’s COOP.

11

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The “Hawaii Judiciary 20/20: Our Vision” Committee extends its sincere appreciation and aloha to the following individuals who contributed immensely to the development of this strategic plan to take the Hawaii Judiciary into the year 2020:

Susan A. Weber, who was appointed to the Committee by Chief Justice Recktenwald, served on the employee survey and technology sub-committees, and left the Judiciary in July, 2012.

Support staff members: Christina Uebelein, Elizabeth Kent, Mark Santoki, Monique Drew, and Dee Wakabayashi

SMS consultants: Faith Rex, James Dannemiller, and Hersh Singer

National Center for State Courts: Daniel Hall, Vice President of Court Consulting Services

Center for Alternative Dispute Resolution staff: Nadine Grace

Planning & Program Evaluation Office staff: Dan Seto, Serene Chew, and Nancy Ralston

Human Resources staff: Wade Hiraishi, Diane Takushi, and Byron Sasaki

IT staff: Daron Shimabukuro (1st Circuit), Vance Wakakuwa (2nd Circuit), Dean Ikioka (2nd Circuit), Thomas Belcher (3rd Circuit), and Jayson Taniguchi (5th Circuit)

Fiscal staff: Naty Butay (administration), Terri Gearon (2nd Circuit); Colin Young (3rd Circuit); and Danette Wise (5th Circuit)

Judge Reifurth’s judicial assistant, Tammy Kaina DeCenzo

Justice Duffy’s judicial assistant, Janice Matsumoto

In addition, the Committee wishes to specially recognize and thank the Judiciary employees for their tremendous participation in the employees’ survey and focus groups, and members of the public who participated in the public surveys and public forums.

To each of you, thank you!

APPENDIX A

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCMF-11-0000719 03-OCT-2011 11:20 AM

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I

In the Matter of the Establishment of and Appointment of Members to the

JUDICIARY STRATEGIC PLANNING COMMITTEE (HAWAI'I JUDICIARY 20/20: OUR VISION)

ORDER ESTABLISHING THE JUDICIARY STRATEGIC PLANNING COMMITTEE (HAWAI'I JUDICIARY 20/20: OUR VISION)

AND APPOINTING ITS MEMBERS (By: Recktenwald, C.J.)

The Hawai'i State Judiciary has been a leader in

judicial planning, instituting the first comprehensive planning

program in the nation and serving as a model for other states.

However, the Judiciary’s most recent planning survey was

completed over twelve years ago. Accordingly, now is an

appropriate time to initiate a strategic planning process to map

the future direction of the Judiciary.

The Judiciary’s mission statement, adopted in 1996,

provides: “The mission of the Judiciary as an independent branch

of government is to administer justice in an impartial, efficient

and accessible manner in accordance with the Law.” The goal of

the strategic planning process is to determine how this mission

may evolve, or should evolve, between now and the year 2020, and

to determine how the judiciary can most effectively achieve this

mission.

The strategic planning process should be guided by

principles of openness and inclusiveness, and should provide

opportunities for judiciary employees, key stakeholders, and the

public to give input that will be useful in shaping a vision for

the future of the Judiciary.

Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Judiciary Strategic

Planning Committee (Hawai'i Judiciary 20/20: Our Vision) (“the

Committee”) is established. The Committee is tasked with

developing a recommended plan to shape the future of the Judiciary

between now and 2020. The recommended plan shall be consistent

with the Judiciary’s mission.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the following individuals are

appointed to the Committee:

The Honorable James E. Duffy, Jr.The Honorable Lawrence M. Reifurth Aileen T. Chikasuye Port, Esq.The Honorable Harry P. FreitasAnona L. Gabriel Terri L. Gearon Velma K. Kam Jay A. KawakamiThe Honorable Rhonda I. Loo Kathy K. Moriyama

2

Loriann M. Okita Cheryl A. SalmoThe Honorable Trudy K. SendaKevin K. Takahashi Lillian K. Takaki, Esq.Eric A. TanigawaBeth Tarter Gary T. TeramaeThe Honorable Rom A. Trader Denise K. Villanova The Honorable Matthew J. Viola Susan A. Weber Dawn G. West Janice G. Yamada Kari L. Yamashiro

IT IS ALSO ORDERED that the Honorable James E. Duffy,

Jr. and the Honorable Lawrence M. Reifurth are designated as Co-

Chairs of the Committee.

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that the Committee shall submit a

report to the Chief Justice describing the committee’s vision,

including specific recommendations for action, by December 31,

2012.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, October 3, 2011.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

Chief Justice

3

APPENDIX B

Judiciary 2020 Strategic Plan SurveyJudiciary 2020 Strategic Plan SurveyJudiciary 2020 Strategic Plan SurveyJudiciary 2020 Strategic Plan Survey

Completing the following survey will provide the Judiciary with your valued opinion which will be used to determine how the Judiciary can most effectively achieve its mission between now and the year 2020. This anonymous survey, which consists largely of multiple choice questions, will take approximately 30 minutes of your time and should be completed in one session. Further, while the multiple choice questions focus on specific subject areas, you have an opportunity at the end of the survey to provide any comments/suggestions on other areas which may assist the Judiciary with achieving its mission. Should you require technical assistance, please contact Mark Santoki, Communications and Community Relations Officer at x4914. Your time and efforts are appreciated.

I have worked at the Judiciary for:

I work in the following county:

I work in the following area:

*

*

*

0 – 5 years

nmlkj

6– 10 years

nmlkj

11 – 15 years

nmlkj

16 – 20 years

nmlkj

21+ years

nmlkj

Hawaii

nmlkj

Kauai

nmlkj

Maui

nmlkj

Honolulu (Oahu)

nmlkj

Appellate Courts

nmlkj

Circuit Court

nmlkj

District Court

nmlkj

Family Court

nmlkj

Court Administration

nmlkj

Administrative Departments (Admin Director, Human Resources, ICRD, Policy & Planning, Support Services)

nmlkj

Judiciary 2020 Strategic Plan SurveyJudiciary 2020 Strategic Plan SurveyJudiciary 2020 Strategic Plan SurveyJudiciary 2020 Strategic Plan SurveyI am a:

I deal with the public:

The major duties of my position are performed:

*

*

*

Judge

nmlkj

Manager or Supervisor

nmlkj

Employee with no supervisory responsibilities

nmlkj

daily

nmlkj

weekly

nmlkj

monthly

nmlkj

rarely

nmlkj

in a courtroom

nmlkj

at a public service counter

nmlkj

in another area

nmlkj


Please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with each of the following statements by marking the appropriate choice to the right of each statement. Please respond to the best of your knowledge and from your own perspective. Your responses will be used by the Judiciary to determine how it can most effectively achieve its mission between now and the year 2020.

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral/Not Applicable Disagree Strongly Disagree

I believe institutional knowledge (e.g., facts, experiences, and “knowhow”) about my workplace is shared among staff.

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

I believe the facilities and services in my building are accessible to the public/court users with disabilities.


I believe I am held accountable for my work.


I believe the people I work with are open to change.


I believe my workplace is successful in providing access to the public/court users with limited English proficiency.


I believe the Judiciary encourages innovative thinking.





I believe sufficient information about the Judiciary and its programs is available to staff.


I believe employees in my workplace conduct themselves in a professional manner.


I believe information covering what to expect when you come to court should be available to the public/court users in various formats.


I believe Judiciary Information Management System (JIMS) provides better and more efficient delivery of services to the public/court users.


I believe procedures and policies among the different courthouses and circuits are standardized.


My building’s facilities are in need of repair.





I know how to access resources to address language issues presented by the public/court users.


I believe “customers” include other Judiciary employees.


I believe the Judiciary is staffed with professionals who treat everyone with respect and dignity.


I know how to provide guidance to the public/court users without providing legal advice.


I recognize my responsibility to uphold the public trust accorded to my position.


I believe employees in my workplace follow up on requests for information in a timely manner to other Judiciary employees.





I am encouraged to look for ways to improve processes and procedures in my workplace.


I believe information is available to the public/court users to assist them with their Judiciary experience.


I believe standard operating procedures are adequately documented and shared with staff.


Customer service is highly valued in my workplace.


I believe the Judiciary responds to concerns raised by the public/court users.


I believe the Judiciary is responsive to the cultural and social diversity of the public/court users.





I believe staff are mentored appropriately.


I believe the technology acquired by the Judiciary is based on the operational needs of my workplace.


I believe there is public trust and confidence in the Judiciary.


I am able to take advantage of training opportunities offered by the Judiciary.


I have the resources I need to effectively do my job.


I believe the results of this survey will be used to make the Judiciary a better place to work.





I believe technology is used effectively to increase the public’s/court users’ access to the Judiciary.


I believe the “Aloha Spirit” is practiced in the Judiciary.


I know my responsibilities if there is an emergency evacuation of the building where I work.


I believe the Judiciary’s internal website (Intranet) provides useful and relevant information for its employees.


I have access to the technology that allows me to complete my work in a timely and efficient manner.


The technology I use in my work provides better and more efficient delivery of services to the public/court users.





Training opportunities are available to help me improve my job skills.


I believe the Judiciary is innovative in the use of technology.


I believe the Judiciary provides a safe working environment for employees in my building.


I believe the Judiciary has simplified processes when appropriate to make it easier for the public/court users.


I feel safe at work. nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

I believe the Judiciary should offer 24/7 customer support to the public/court users.





I have been given essential training to perform my job.


Court procedures are accessible to me to refer to when doing my work.


I believe technology has made case disposition more efficient.


I believe the Judiciary utilizes technology effectively to provide information to me.


I believe the Judiciary does a good job providing security for its employees in my building.


My workplace is adequately staffed.





I have access to a computer with the appropriate software to do my job.


I believe that my immediate supervisor communicates important information to me in a timely manner.


I believe that the Judiciary’s public website (Internet) provides useful and relevant information for the public/court users.


My immediate supervisor follows up on my suggestions for improvements.



The Judiciary’s mission is to administer justice in an impartial, efficient and accessible manner in accordance with the law. Please provide any additional comments/suggestions that you may have that can be used by the Judiciary to determine how it can most effectively achieve its mission between now and the year 2020. Comments/suggestions are limited to 500 words or less.

55

66

1 of 12

Judiciary 2020 Strategic Plan Survey

1. I have worked at the Judiciary for:

Response

Percent

Response

Count

0 – 5 years 31.6% 479

6– 10 years 17.7% 269

11 – 15 years 10.4% 158

16 – 20 years 13.6% 206

21+ years 26.7% 406

answered question 1,518

skipped question 0

2. I work in the following county:

Response

Percent

Response

Count

Hawaii 14.0% 213

Kauai 6.7% 102

Maui 13.8% 210

Honolulu (Oahu) 65.4% 993


skipped question 0

2 of 12

3. I work in the following area:

Response

Percent

Response

Count

Appellate Courts 5.3% 80

Circuit Court 28.5% 433

District Court 23.6% 358

Family Court 23.0% 349

Court Administration 5.2% 79

Administrative Departments (Admin

Director, Human Resources, ICRD,

Policy & Planning, Support

Services)

14.4% 219


skipped question 0

4. I am a:

Response

Percent

Response

Count

Judge 5.6% 85

Manager or Supervisor 20.3% 308

Employee with no supervisory

responsibilities74.1% 1,125


skipped question 0

3 of 12

5. I deal with the public:

Response

Percent

Response

Count

daily 66.5% 1,010

weekly 11.6% 176

monthly 2.8% 43

rarely 19.0% 289


skipped question 0

6. The major duties of my position are performed:

Response

Percent

Response

Count

in a courtroom 20.0% 304

at a public service counter 13.2% 200

in another area 66.8% 1,014


skipped question 0

4 of 12

7. Please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with each of the following

statements by marking the appropriate choice to the right of each statement. Please

respond to the best of your knowledge and from your own perspective. Your responses will

be used by the Judiciary to determine how it can most effectively achieve its mission

between now and the year 2020.

Strongly

AgreeAgree

Neutral/Not

ApplicableDisagree

Strongly

Disagree

Rating

Average

Response

Count

I believe institutional knowledge

(e.g., facts, experiences, and

“know-how”) about my workplace is

shared among staff.

19.3%

(272)51.0%

(718)11.6% (163)

14.0%

(197)4.1% (58) 2.33 1,408

I believe the facilities and services

in my building are accessible to the

public/court users with disabilities.

24.8%

(349)52.8%

(744)9.4% (132)

8.2%

(115)5.0% (70) 2.16 1,410

I believe I am held accountable for

my work.55.2%

(779)

40.0%

(564)3.0% (43) 1.2% (17) 0.6% (8) 1.52 1,411

I believe the people I work with are

open to change.

13.0%

(183)40.6%

(572)19.2% (270)

20.0%

(281)

7.2%

(102)2.68 1,408

I believe my workplace is

successful in providing access to

the public/court users with limited

English proficiency.

17.2%

(242)49.8%

(701)23.3% (328)

7.9%

(111)1.8% (25) 2.27 1,407

I believe the Judiciary encourages

innovative thinking.

10.9%

(153)35.0%

(492)24.8% (349)

20.9%

(294)

8.3%

(117)2.81 1,405


skipped question 101

5 of 12






Strongly

AgreeAgree

Neutral/Not

ApplicableDisagree

Strongly

Disagree

Rating

Average

Response

Count

I believe sufficient information

about the Judiciary and its

programs is available to staff.

8.5%

(119)49.4%

(688)17.9% (250)

20.3%

(283)3.8% (53) 2.61 1,393

I believe employees in my

workplace conduct themselves in a

professional manner.

19.9%

(277)48.3%

(672)12.5% (174)

14.2%

(197)5.2% (72) 2.36 1,392

I believe information covering what

to expect when you come to court

should be available to the

public/court users in various

formats.

41.4%

(578)47.6%

(665)8.4% (117) 1.9% (27) 0.6% (9) 1.73 1,396

I believe Judiciary Information

Management System (JIMS)

provides better and more efficient

delivery of services to the

public/court users.

7.9%

(109)

35.2%

(487)42.7% (591)

10.2%

(141)4.1% (57) 2.68 1,385

I believe procedures and policies

among the different courthouses

and circuits are standardized.

4.1%

(56)

17.8%

(246)28.2% (390)

32.1%

(443)

17.8%

(246)3.42 1,381

My building’s facilities are in need

of repair.43.0%

(599)

22.8%

(317)11.8% (164)

15.7%

(219)6.7% (94) 2.20 1,393



6 of 12






Strongly

AgreeAgree

Neutral/Not

ApplicableDisagree

Strongly

Disagree

Rating

Average

Response

Count

I know how to access resources to

address language issues presented

by the public/court users.

11.3%

(155)49.4%

(676)23.2% (318)

13.8%

(189)2.3% (31) 2.46 1,369

I believe “customers” include other

Judiciary employees.

28.5%

(390)51.2%

(700)12.8% (175) 6.2% (85) 1.3% (18) 2.01 1,368

I believe the Judiciary is staffed

with professionals who treat

everyone with respect and dignity.

11.8%

(162)43.3%

(594)17.8% (244)

20.3%

(279)6.8% (94) 2.67 1,373

I know how to provide guidance to

the public/court users without

providing legal advice.

26.8%

(368)53.5%

(734)16.0% (220) 2.8% (39) 0.9% (12) 1.98 1,373

I recognize my responsibility to

uphold the public trust accorded to

my position.

55.2%

(758)

40.9%

(562)3.5% (48) 0.3% (4) 0.1% (2) 1.49 1,374

I believe employees in my

workplace follow up on requests for

information in a timely manner to

other Judiciary employees.

25.7%

(354)48.9%

(673)10.6% (146)

11.1%

(153)3.6% (50) 2.18 1,376



7 of 12






Strongly

AgreeAgree

Neutral/Not

ApplicableDisagree

Strongly

Disagree

Rating

Average

Response

Count

I am encouraged to look for ways

to improve processes and

procedures in my workplace.

18.9%

(256)42.5%

(576)16.1% (218)

15.4%

(208)7.2% (97) 2.49 1,355

I believe information is available to

the public/court users to assist

them with their Judiciary

experience.

9.5%

(129)52.5%

(713)23.0% (313)

13.0%

(177)2.0% (27) 2.46 1,359

I believe standard operating

procedures are adequately

documented and shared with staff.

8.6%

(117)38.5%

(523)19.5% (265)

23.9%

(324)

9.4%

(128)2.87 1,357

Customer service is highly valued

in my workplace.

26.0%

(353)47.1%

(640)16.4% (223)

7.8%

(106)2.7% (37) 2.14 1,359

I believe the Judiciary responds to

concerns raised by the public/court

users.

13.6%

(184)47.3%

(641)26.6% (360)

9.1%

(123)3.4% (46) 2.41 1,354

I believe the Judiciary is

responsive to the cultural and

social diversity of the public/court

users.

14.5%

(196)52.1%

(703)24.5% (331) 7.2% (97) 1.6% (22) 2.29 1,349



8 of 12






Strongly

AgreeAgree

Neutral/Not

ApplicableDisagree

Strongly

Disagree

Rating

Average

Response

Count

I believe staff are mentored

appropriately.

7.1%

(95)36.9%

(495)19.3% (258)

25.5%

(342)

11.2%

(150)2.97 1,340

I believe the technology acquired

by the Judiciary is based on the

operational needs of my workplace.

8.8%

(118)45.0%

(604)18.8% (252)

20.1%

(270)7.2% (97) 2.72 1,341

I believe there is public trust and

confidence in the Judiciary.

8.3%

(112)44.9%

(603)26.0% (350)

16.2%

(218)4.5% (61) 2.64 1,344

I am able to take advantage of

training opportunities offered by the

Judiciary.

12.9%

(173)43.3%

(581)22.1% (297)

15.6%

(209)6.2% (83) 2.59 1,343

I have the resources I need to

effectively do my job.

11.4%

(153)50.4%

(676)15.1% (202)

15.9%

(213)7.2% (97) 2.57 1,341

I believe the results of this survey

will be used to make the Judiciary a

better place to work.

22.7%

(304)41.2%

(551)21.1% (282)

10.4%

(139)4.6% (62) 2.33 1,338



9 of 12






Strongly

AgreeAgree

Neutral/Not

ApplicableDisagree

Strongly

Disagree

Rating

Average

Response

Count

I believe technology is used

effectively to increase the

public’s/court users’ access to the

Judiciary.

11.1%

(148)52.8%

(702)21.1% (281)

11.5%

(153)3.4% (45) 2.43 1,329

I believe the “Aloha Spirit” is

practiced in the Judiciary.

11.4%

(152)47.4%

(632)22.6% (301)

14.0%

(187)4.5% (60) 2.53 1,332

I know my responsibilities if there

is an emergency evacuation of the

building where I work.

31.7%

(421)57.8%

(768)5.6% (74) 4.1% (54) 0.9% (12) 1.85 1,329

I believe the Judiciary’s internal

website (Intranet) provides useful

and relevant information for its

employees.

24.0%

(320)58.8%

(783)11.9% (158) 4.5% (60) 0.8% (11) 1.99 1,332

I have access to the technology

that allows me to complete my

work in a timely and efficient

manner.

18.4%

(245)53.8%

(716)12.2% (163)

10.5%

(140)5.0% (67) 2.30 1,331

The technology I use in my work

provides better and more efficient

delivery of services to the

public/court users.

14.4%

(191)51.2%

(681)20.7% (275)

10.5%

(140)3.2% (42) 2.37 1,329



10 of 12






Strongly

AgreeAgree

Neutral/Not

ApplicableDisagree

Strongly

Disagree

Rating

Average

Response

Count

Training opportunities are available

to help me improve my job skills.

8.4%

(111)37.2%

(494)23.6% (313)

21.6%

(287)

9.3%

(123)2.86 1,328

I believe the Judiciary is innovative

in the use of technology.

7.9%

(105)40.3%

(534)26.3% (349)

19.3%

(256)6.1% (81) 2.75 1,325

I believe the Judiciary provides a

safe working environment for

employees in my building.

13.6%

(180)49.6%

(659)13.3% (177)

16.1%

(214)7.4% (98) 2.54 1,328

I believe the Judiciary has

simplified processes when

appropriate to make it easier for the

public/court users.

7.4%

(98)40.8%

(541)33.1% (438)

14.9%

(198)3.8% (50) 2.67 1,325

I feel safe at work.18.7%

(248)51.1%

(676)14.3% (189)

10.3%

(136)5.7% (75) 2.33 1,324

I believe the Judiciary should offer

24/7 customer support to the

public/court users.

10.4%

(138)

24.6%

(325)30.4% (401)

26.5%

(350)

8.1%

(107)2.97 1,321



11 of 12






Strongly

AgreeAgree

Neutral/Not

ApplicableDisagree

Strongly

Disagree

Rating

Average

Response

Count

I have been given essential training

to perform my job.

11.0%

(145)49.7%

(655)17.3% (228)

17.4%

(229)4.7% (62) 2.55 1,319

Court procedures are accessible to

me to refer to when doing my work.

9.6%

(127)45.3%

(597)27.0% (355)

14.1%

(186)3.9% (52) 2.57 1,317

I believe technology has made

case disposition more efficient.

9.8%

(129)44.5%

(586)32.5% (428)

10.0%

(132)3.2% (42) 2.52 1,317

I believe the Judiciary utilizes

technology effectively to provide

information to me.

10.5%

(138)53.3%

(701)21.4% (281)

10.9%

(143)4.0% (53) 2.45 1,316

I believe the Judiciary does a good

job providing security for its

employees in my building.

14.0%

(185)45.8%

(606)15.1% (199)

16.9%

(223)

8.2%

(109)2.60 1,322

My workplace is adequately

staffed.

8.8%

(116)35.6%

(470)14.6% (193)

26.1%

(344)

14.9%

(196)3.03 1,319



12 of 12






Strongly

AgreeAgree

Neutral/Not

ApplicableDisagree

Strongly

Disagree

Rating

Average

Response

Count

I have access to a computer with

the appropriate software to do my

job.

21.7%

(287)59.2%

(784)8.2% (109) 7.4% (98) 3.5% (46) 2.12 1,324

I believe that my immediate

supervisor communicates important

information to me in a timely

manner.

34.3%

(453)39.7%

(525)10.1% (134)

9.5%

(126)6.4% (84) 2.14 1,322

I believe that the Judiciary’s public

website (Internet) provides useful

and relevant information for the

public/court users.

17.3%

(228)58.7%

(773)18.2% (240) 4.3% (57) 1.4% (18) 2.14 1,316

My immediate supervisor follows

up on my suggestions for

improvements.

24.5%

(323)37.4%

(494)20.7% (274)

10.4%

(138)7.0% (92) 2.38 1,321



16. The Judiciary’s mission is to administer justice in an impartial, efficient and accessible

manner in accordance with the law. Please provide any additional comments/suggestions

that you may have that can be used by the Judiciary to determine how it can most

effectively achieve its mission between now and the year 2020. Comments/suggestions are

limited to 500 words or less.

Response

Count

553

answered question 553


APPENDIX C

Hawai’I State Judiciary Stakeholder Survey Page 1

© SMS, Inc. 12/27/2012 9:07:06 AM

#2 ##2## Judiciary Stakeholder E- Survey Thank you for agreeing to complete this survey to contribute to the Hawai‘i State Judiciary 20/10 Strategic Plan process. You have been identified as a key member of the community who might provide insight into the current state of the Judiciary and guidance about where it should focus its attention and emphasis as it evolves over the next decade. This should take no more than 15 minutes to complete. Survey results will be aggregated before sharing with the Judiciary and will remain confidential.

1. What is your experience with the Hawai‘i State Judiciary (please provide specific examples if possible)?

2. What do you understand to be the central mission or role of the Hawai‘I State Judiciary?

3. What is the Judiciary doing well?

4. What changes should the Judiciary make?

5. Which section of the Hawai’i State Judiciary do you interact with the most?

a. The Supreme Court b. Intermediate Court of Appeals c. Land Court d. Tax Appeals Court e. Circuit Court f. Family Court g. District Court h. Court Administration i. Other: _________________

6. How well does the section you interact with the most function? How does it need to change?

7. What will be the biggest challenges to face the Hawai‘i State Judiciary over the next decade?

8. In light of those challenges, where should the Hawai‘i State Judiciary focus its attention over

the next decade?

9. Are there segments in the State, for example -- geographic or demographic -- that should receive more or less attention from the Hawai‘i State Judiciary in the future?

10. Are there areas of specialization or groups of constituents that should receive more or less

attention from the Hawai‘i State Judiciary in the future?

11. Do you have any recommendations that you would like to see the Hawai‘i State Judiciary adopt as goals to achieve over the next decade?

12. Is there anything else that you would like to add?

13. Please select the type of organization in which you work or to which you belong:

a. Business b. County Government c. Executive Branch d. General Public e. Government Attorney

Hawai’I State Judiciary Stakeholder Survey Page 2

© SMS, Inc. 12/27/2012 9:07:06 AM

f. Judiciary Commission or Board g. Labor Organization h. Legislative Branch i. Non-Profit (Management, Attorney, or Staff) j. Private Attorney k. Other:______________________________

14. On what island do you interact with the Hawai’i State Judiciary the most?

a. Hawai’i

b. Kaua’i c. Lana’i d. Maui

e. Moloka’i f. O’ahu

15. How many years have you interacted with the Hawai‘i State Judiciary?

a. Less than a year b. 1 to 5 years c. 6 to 10 years d. 11 to 15 years e. 16 to 20 years f. More than 20 years

Mahalo for participating in this very important survey!

APPENDIX D


© SMS, Inc. 8/24/2012 9:24 AM

General Population E- Survey –

Aloha. On behalf of the Hawaii State Judiciary can you please complete this ANONYMOUS survey? Your responses are intended to contribute to the Hawaii State Judiciary 20/20 Strategic Plan.

1. When was the last time you interacted with someone at the Hawaii State Judiciary? Within the last week ................................. 59% Within the last month ............................... 16% Within the last quarter ................................ 8% Within the last year .................................... 9% Over a year ............................................... 8% Never (skip to Q 10) .................................. 0% Not sure (skip to Q 10) ............................... 0%

2. How regularly do you interact with

someone at the Hawaii State Judiciary? At least once a week ................................ 52% About once a month ................................. 18% Several times a year ................................ 22% Just once ................................................... 8%

3. What was the nature of your last interaction with the Hawaii State Judiciary? Juror .......................................................... 1% Received a notice for Jury Duty ................ 3% Witness ...................................................... 1% Plaintiff ...................................................... 3% Defendant ................................................. 2% Family member/friend ............................... 3% Attorney ................................................... 66% Other affiliated professional ...................... 7% To access a court document ...................... 5% To pay a fine or ticket................................. 1% Other (please describe) ............................. 9%

4. Where was your last interaction with the Hawaii State Judiciary?

Hawaii – Hilo ...................................................... 6% Hawaii – Kona .................................................... 4% Kauai .................................................................. 5% Lanai .................................................................. 0% Maui ................................................................ 11% Molokai............................................................... 0% Oahu – Honolulu .............................................. 66% Oahu – Kapolei .................................................. 9% Oahu – Windward .............................................. 0% 5. With which court was your last interaction? The Supreme Court ............................................ 4% Intermediate Court of Appeals ............................ 4% Land Court ........................................................ 2% Tax Appeals Court ............................................. 0% Circuit Court ..................................................... 53% Family Court (Includes divorce, adoptions) .................. 17% District Court (includes traffic, small claims) ................. 14% Court Administration ........................................... 4% Other .................................................................. 3% Not Sure ............................................................. 1% 6. Overall how would you rate your

experience(s) with the Judiciary? Extremely positive.............................................. 15% Very positive ...................................................... 37% OK ..................................................................... 37% Very negative ....................................................... 6% Extremely negative .............................................. 4% Not sure ............................................................... 0%

PLEASE ANSWER THE QUESTIONS BELOW BY FILLING IN ONE BUBBLE PER LINE.

7. How satisfied are you with the following aspects of the Hawaii State Judiciary?

Very Satisfied

Satisfied

OK

Dissatisfied Very

Dissatisfied Don't know

a. Location of courts and offices

24% 42% 22% 6% 5% 1%

b. Parking availability 14% 25% 29% 16% 10% 7%

c. Hours open to conduct my business

12% 44% 33% 6% 2% 2%

d. Directional signage (wayfinding)

9% 29% 40% 10% 3% 10%

e. Informational signage 7% 29% 40% 10% 3% 11%

n = 393

Survey #1


© SMS, Inc. 8/24/2012 9:24 AM

f. Reaching the person who can answer my questions

8% 26% 38% 15% 7% 6%

g. Telephone calls are answered promptly

12% 31% 31% 11% 6% 11%

h. Calls are returned within one business day

13% 25% 29% 7% 6% 20%

i. Sufficient information available through the telephone

9% 22% 29% 14% 7% 19%

j. Easy to navigate website 9% 28% 32% 15% 6% 10%

k. Sufficient information available on website

8% 27% 34% 14% 7% 10%

8. How satisfied are you with the following about the staff of the Hawaii State Judiciary?

Very Satisfied

Satisfied

OK

Dissatisfied Very

Dissatisfied Don't know

a. Staff is knowledgeable 17% 47% 24% 7% 2% 4%

b. Staff is professional 20% 43% 23% 7% 3% 3%

c. Staff is responsive 17% 41% 25% 10% 4% 3%

d. Staff is friendly 18% 40% 25% 9% 5% 3%

e. Staff treats everyone with respect and dignity

20% 36% 26% 8% 6% 4%

f. Staff is able to direct me to the right person when I call the wrong number

14% 32% 23% 9% 3% 20%

g. Staff is able to direct me to the right person when I go to the wrong office

14% 31% 25% 7% 3% 20%

9. How strongly do you agree or disagree with the following statements?

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neither

Agree nor Disagree

Disagree Strongly

Disagree Don't know

a. The aloha spirit is practiced in the Hawaii State Judiciary

8% 38% 35% 11% 6% 3%

b.The Hawaii State Judiciary has sufficient translation services

2% 14% 19% 11% 4% 50%

c. The Hawaii State Judiciary is responsive to the cultural and social diversity of the public/court users.

5% 23% 28% 9% 5% 30%

d. I feel safe when I’m in a Hawaii State Judiciary facility

21% 52% 16% 5% 4% 2%

e. The Hawaii State Judiciary maintains an appropriate level of security screening

16% 51% 19% 7% 4% 3%

f. The Hawaii State Judiciary’s facilities and services are accessible to the public/court users with disabilities

9% 33% 15% 3% 1% 38%

g. The Hawaii State Judiciary’s facilities are clean and well maintained

14% 50% 22% 10% 3% 1%

10. How strongly do you agree or disagree with the

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neither

Disagree Strongly Disagree

Not Sure


© SMS, Inc. 8/24/2012 9:24 AM

following statements? Agree nor Disagree

a. I believe the Hawaii State Judiciary plays an important role in the State

66% 28% 3% 1% 2% 0%

b. I respect the Hawaii State Judiciary

45% 38% 9% 4% 4% 0%

c. I trust the Hawaii State Judiciary

24% 42% 17% 10% 7% 0%

d. I have confidence in the Hawaii State Judiciary

23% 42% 17% 11% 7% 0%

DEMOGRAPHICS

11. What is your age? Is it… 18 to 24 ..................................................... 0% 25 to 29 ..................................................... 3% 30 to 34 .................................................. 10% 35 to 39 ..................................................... 6% 40 to 44 ..................................................... 8% 45 to 49 ................................................... 12% 50 to 54 ................................................... 15% 55 to 64 ................................................... 29% 65 to 69 ................................................... 13% 70 or older ................................................. 3% Decline to respond ..................................... 0% 12. What is your ethnic background? (check all that apply) Caucasian ................................................ 42% African American ....................................... 0% Hawaiian or Part-Hawaiian ........................ 7% Japanese ................................................. 23% Chinese ................................................... 10% Filipino ....................................................... 4% Korean ....................................................... 3% Hispanic/Latino .......................................... 3% Other (specify): __________________ ...... 8% Decline to respond ..................................... 0% 13. What is the highest level of education you completed? High school degree or less ........................ 1% Some college (including associate’s degree) ...... 5% College grad with bachelor’s degree .......... 7% Some graduate school ............................... 1% Graduate or professional degree ............ 86% Decline to respond ..................................... 0%

14. What was the total income from all sources of all employed members of this household in 2011? Income before taxes? Less than $15,000 ..................................... 2% $15,000 to $24,999.................................... 0% $25,000 to $34,999.................................... 3% $35,000 to $49,999.................................... 6% $50,000 to $74,999.................................. 13% $75,000 to $99,999.................................. 14% $100,000 to $150,000 .............................. 29% $150,000 or more .................................... 32% Decline to respond..................................... 0% 15. How long have you lived in Hawaii? Less than one year .....................................1% 1 to 5 years................................. ............... 4% 6 to 10 years.............................. ................ 7% 11 to 20 years............................. ............... 9% More than 20 years, not lifetime............... 38% Lifetime .................................................... 40% Other (specify)________________ ........... 2% Decline to respond..................................... 0% 16. Gender Male ........................................................ 58% O Female .................................................... 42% Decline to respond..................................... 0% 17. What is your home zip code? _____________

18. Do you have any comments you would like to share about the Hawaii State Judiciary?

hawaii judiciary 20/20...hawaii judiciary 20/20: our vision “…to determine how the judiciary’s...

Documents